Hey, there! Log in / Register
Four-story residential building rejected on stretch of Paris Street in East Boston with mostly two- and three-story buildings
By adamg on Tue, 01/10/2023 - 10:37am
Rendering of proposed building by Context.
The Zoning Board of Appeal today rejected a proposed four-story, three-unit residential building at 304 Paris St. in East Boston.
The board rejected developer Joseph Trichilo's proposal without prejudice, which means he can come back within a year with a proposal for a shorter building.
Trichilo had proposed buying what is now an unused, dilapidated garage owned by Sacred Heart Parish across the street and replacing it with a four-story building with two one-bedroom units and a third two-bedroom duplex on the top.
Three-unit buildings are allowed based on the lot's zoning, but the building is taller than allowed. Board member Hansy Better Barraza said the extra floor just was "not in context" with the surrounding area. Member Katie Whewell said the small lot "was a great site for more density," but agreed she wanted to see something shorter.
The BPDA had recommended denial without prejudice because of the height.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
How are we ever going to get
How are we ever going to get the housing we need when we reject buildings because of an extra floor?
The Archdiocese owned the
The Archdiocese owned the parcel one time and sold it for the tune of $399k according to public records , the 1100 plus square foot parcel is abutting smaller single family homes , how would anyone feel if a neighbor was building a 4 story tower next to a smaller home , but it’s happening all over Eastie , and sometimes the abutting property owners don’t have a say against developers . Times are changing , population is growing , land is non abundant and times are desperate.
I would be in favor of it. I
I would be in favor of it. I support stuff in my HP neighborhood. People need housing.
4 Story Tower? Lol
A 4 story building in no universe is a 'tower'. As far as abutting smaller single family homes.. what? As Adam points out, one side is what looks to be 3 story town houses, and the other side two semi-detached town houses. Abutting directly in the rear looks to be 2 and 3 story apartment builds.
The Tower
When I hear "tower", I always think of The Tower, by William Butler Yeats. Here is Yeats's tower, Thoor Ballylee, which is the subject of the poem:
https://thoorballylee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/thoorballyleeriver.jpg
About four stories, I would say. And then there's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_Hill_Monument#/media/File:Prospec...
Plenty of moderate-sized towers out there.
Thoor Ballylee looks like it
Thoor Ballylee looks like it might be built in inside the 100ft wetland buffer. And no off-street parking. There's not enough street spaces in rural Ireland at it is! This tower is completely out of character and will likely ruin the ability of existing residents to enjoy their neighborhood. Just another soulless moneygrab by developers.
ZBA
I think these are Wu appointees who rejected the building? IMO, they should be removed immediately because they apparently are not aware of the desperate need for more housing in our communities and are rejecting buildings on an entirely arbitrary and shifting view of "context". You can't call for more density and not have more height.
The job of the ZBA
The job of the ZBA is simple: to answer whether the applicant's proposal meets the three-part test of MGL Chapter 44A. Basically, "Should this particular applicant be granted a waiver of the rules that apply to everyone else, because something specific and unique about this property poses a hardship?"
If you want to see more housing, the answer is to change the zoning rules, not to ask the ZBA to be looser about handing out exceptions to the zoning rules.
Yeah yeah
We all know what the regulations are in theory and how it differs from the role the ZBA currently fills in reality. When every single new project is banned under current zoning, the only relatively near-term fix is have the ZBA approve a waiver for your project.
If we wait for the political climate to change so that the zoning rules will make sense, we're going to be waiting for a long, long time. Meanwhile insufficient housing will be built, and what stock remains will be affordable only for the very wealthy. Which is where we have been for the last 10 years.
I think that's a bad idea
I think it's a very bad idea if you have a bad law on the books, to say "Just leave the law on the books and the cops wont' enforce it ... much." This is an open invitation to corruption. The zoning code absolutely needs to be changed; taking away some of the pressure for change by handing out variances right and left is exactly the wrong thing to do.
I'd like to see the ZBA strictly follow the rules that it's supposed to follow, which would effectively be a work-to-rule slowdown, keeping the pressure on to fix the zoning code.
That's a gambit. If it works
That's a gambit. If it works and gets zoning to be reformed, then I support and get your logic. If all it do is just exacerbate the housing crisis more yet no zoning reforms come (which is possible, SF has no zoning reforms despite the level of pressure there), then things were not helped.
Board member Hansy Better
Hansy was one of the few reappointments from the previous ZBA and never should have been reappointed. She is a known NIMBY. This is surprising to no one who pays attention to this stuff.
"Board member Hansy Better
"Board member Hansy Better Barraza said the extra floor just was "not in context" with the surrounding area"
Actually it's these ZBA hacks who are "not in context" with with reality given the housing crisis that is slowly destroying this city and this state. Absolutely incredible that four stories on a street full of triple deckers is not being built *as of right* in this city.
That's not something the ZBA can fix
I agree, but that's not something the ZBA can fix; it needs to be fixed by changing the zoning code. The ZBA isn't allowed to hand out variances just because the city needs more housing; the enabling legislation for the ZBA has very narrow criteria under which they're allowed to grant a variance.
Absolutely incredible that
I'll play devil's advocate. Boston has some of the most beautiful architecture in the US and simply saying "add more/build higher" is a recipe for disaster, IMO. First of all, one extra story to one triple-decker housing isn't going to fix our housing crises, but allowing zoning that has blocks of alternating three and four story buildings sure will look bad. If you don't like zoning, take a visit to Houston. It's a mess...gas stations next to residential homes, office buildings next to both and strip malls next to churches. The only way this region (because it's a regional problem--Boston is one of the only towns continuing to add more density) will fix the housing crisis is if all towns start allowing denser development, particularly around transit lines.
Just my two cents...
allowing zoning that has
You're right, this looks terrible:
https://goo.gl/maps/Hu2iseDryRnECwjN9
Snark aside, I agree with the end of your comment.
. Boston has some of the most
Sure does. Not so much here on this street, though. Nothing wrong with having varied height on a street either. Adding an extra floor or two here and there does add up for new housing units, though. Comparisons to Houston for allowing a building to be 4 stories in a 3 story three decker street is completely ludicrous. That's akin to crying that Boston is becoming Manhattan anytime a building over 10 stories is propose downtown, while Manhattan is throwing up 800, 900, 1000+ footers like it's nothing. Mixed use zoning, though, does work very well and there is nothing wrong with combining ground floor retail with housing and even office/commercial space. That said, yes, the housing crisis is a regional issue and ToD should be prioritized everywhere. I'd also say if we up-zoned all of the major squares and corridors ((all the) Washington St, Blue Hill Ave, Dot Ave, Hyde Park Ave, Centre/Spring St, etc to by right 5/6 over 1/2 of retail + housing we would go a very long way to making a dent in the housing crisis.
Insufficient
financial return to developer is NOT a hardship under the zoning code. Housing advocates can fight for a change in zoning regs. By defending these proposals, you are in effect giving a green light to developer greed and cheerleading the luxury condo-ification of neighborhoods.